Thursday, October 2, 2008

Donate to
Please donate to support our work is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

posted by   |  permalink  |  5 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 

Post a Comment

The comment policy.


Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/02/2008 3:40 AM  |  Flag  
Another mishap in the making:

The pit that killed the Todesco girl allegedly killed a Chihuahua several weeks earlier. Yet these A/C professionals released this dog back to the owners...Not Prudent!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/02/2008 4:30 AM  |  Flag  
It's pretty clear that they could enforce the Nuisance Animal clause if they wanted too..but that would take time away from rescuing Pit Bulls.

SMC 9.25.092 Nuisance animals.

A. Any animal which, by its actions or condition, presents a clear and
present threat to the public peace, health, or safety is a nuisance
and may be summarily detained pending correction of the condition, or
pending the owner's trial, hearing, appeal or other judicial
proceedings for violation of this chapter or any other provision of

B. If an animal is a threat to public peace, health or safety, but the
public is not in imminent danger, in lieu of summarily detaining the
animal, the Director may post a notice to abate a nuisance upon any
property wherein an animal is kept in violation of the provisions of
this chapter. If no response is made to the notice within twenty-four
(24) hours, the animal shall be detained at the City Animal Shelter.

C. In addition, nothing shall prevent prosecution of owners of noisy
animals under Chapter 25.08 of the Seattle Municipal Code (Noise
Ordinance 106360) or its successor ordinance.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/02/2008 4:41 AM  |  Flag  
SECTION 9.25.08

They talk about an attack on another animal here that inflicts "less" than severe injury. So I take it "severe" injury sets the dog up for a dangerous dog hearing?

G. Permit any animal when unprovoked on public or private property to:

1. Bite a human being causing less than severe injury as defined in 9.25.023E of the Seattle Municipal Code or bite a domestic animal; or

2. Chase or approach a human, on property other than that of the animal's owner, in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, which may include but is not limited to any one or more of the following behaviors: snarling, baring teeth, growling, snapping, pouncing, lunging, attacking, or attempting to bite.

The breed of a dog shall not be considered to be evidence of violation of this section.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/02/2008 4:34 PM  |  Flag  
I would say a dog that mauled a frickin' Mastiff would be in the RED ZONE!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  10/02/2008 7:52 PM  |  Flag  
Too often, Animal Control is enabling the pit bull breeders/dog fighters and helping these people let their dogs attack again.

Nearly every pit bull that has attacked or killed a child STARTED by attacking and killing other pets.

That is one of the biggest warning signs that a dog is troubled and dangerous.

It's because pit bulls have what is called a HIGH PREY DRIVE. That is why they attack other pets, and also why they attack small children.

They see both as prey.

By releasing this dog, Animal Control is fully to blame when this dog attacks a child.

The question is, why is Animal Control helping this dog attack again?

Are there dog breeders with personal interests that have been hired as Animal Control officers? No Kill fanatics that advocate protecting aggressive dogs from euthanasia?

What is going on?

The sad thing is that it will take a lawsuit to make Animal Control act responsibly if they are this negligent.

Post a Comment »